When liberal – or worse, progressive – politicians like Kamala Harris tell you what they want to do, take a look at their audience. If it’s a campaign appearance, they are most likely dispensing the purest corral litter, the stuff fertilizer is made of. But if they aren’t running for office at the moment and they are speaking to a small, friendly group, that’s when you should believe them because that’s when they are probably telling the truth.
Case in point: When speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California in 2006, Kamala Harris told them what her stance on the Second Amendment really is.
Kamala Harris once suggested it “would be great” to ban all gun ownership but said such a policy was unlikely and a “long way off” due to constitutional obstacles, according to a previously unreported audio recording.
Harris, who was serving as district attorney of San Francisco at the time, spoke at a 2006 event hosted by the Commonwealth Club of California, where the moderator asked whether gun ownership should be banned.
“Is there any justification for anyone to carry a gun, except for law enforcement? And why not ban them completely in the city?” asked moderator Mary Cranston.
“Yeah, and it would be great to end world hunger and a couple of other things, too,” said Harris. “Are we going to really be able to get rid of people owning and possessing guns? I don’t know.”
See for yourself:
Now, of course, Kamala Harris is claiming to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner. I doubt the latter, and I just don’t believe the former. How can you tell? Listen to her on any Second Amendment issue; her statement is invariably on the order of “I support the Second Amendment but…”
Whenever a pol does that, you can safely ignore anything they said before the word “but.” That’s because they are almost certainly lying.
See Related: Nobody’s Buying Kamala Harris’ ‘I’m a Gun Owner’ Shtick
Senator Chris Murphy: Wrong on Bump Stocks, Wrong on Guns, Wrong on 2nd Amendment, Wrong for America
In 2005, Harris reportedly backed a San Francisco ballot measure that would ban all civilian handguns in the city, according to The Reload. That measure was defeated after legal challenges from Second Amendment groups. She also signed an amicus brief in 2008 that argued Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban was constitutional.
In 2007, Harris warned that San Francisco authorities would carry out safety checks at the homes of legal gun owners.
“Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs,” said Harris during a press conference.
That’s a totalitarian rule that would make a Caesar blush.
Fortunately, few if any American gun owners are buying Kamala Harris’ “evolution” on this issue, any more than we’re buying Tim “Great Walz of China” and his phony pheasant hunting outing with strangely new-appearing vests and caps and a shotgun that he struggled to load – or worse, the absolutely abhorrent display of bad, not to say outright dangerous gun handling at an event put on by Dem Senate candidate Lucas Kunce of Missouri.
See Related: The Dick Cheney School of Marksmanship
When you look at the embedded images and video in Dan Zoernig’s piece on this, take careful note of how the targets are placed relative to the firing points – and the safety glasses protecting Adam Kinzinger’s hair, as they weren’t in front of his eyes. Not to mention the reporter who was hit by a fragment bounced off a steel silhouette target that appears to be placed only 20 yards away from the firing line.
What a joke.
Look, if you’re here, reading these words, you probably aren’t buying Kamala Harris’ or Tim Walz’s bovine excrement about gun ownership or the Second Amendment. But some folks in your circle of acquaintance might – be sure to disabuse them of that notion before they vote!
